Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

thecritic.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#21

Post by danarmak »

captain_price7 wrote: post #16
dcolkitt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The UK does an extremely bad job of teaching its historial "religious" conflict, which was rarely about doctrine so much as temporal power-politics. I disagree. There really is no way to understand the English Civil War without understanding the religious disputes at its cores. Yes, it was a power struggle. But for the most part, many if not most of its major players were fighting out of deep-seated religious convi…

That last line is interesting. Can you please provide any links for further reading?

The book /Albion's Seed/, and this review of it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-se...

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#22

Post by rsynnott »

pjc50 wrote: post #8

Cromwell really does have a lingering propaganda support, doesn't he? The UK is one of a very small number of countries to have deliberately restored its monarchy after a revolution and period of parliamentary government, and the reason for that is that Cromwellian government was even worse for a lot of people. A modern analogue might be the Iranian Revolution; congratulations on getting rid of the puppet monarch con…

> now dancing is banned. Or in the case of Cromwell, Christmas.

Also dancing. The Puritans weren't big fans of dancing.

Samuel Pepys diary starts as the Cromwell regime ends. While England remained an economic basket case that was at war with basically everyone, personal freedom dramatically improves in the early pages. It's worth noting that it did all bring around a more constitutional monarchy; the post-restoration monarchy was substantially different to pre-restoration.

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#23

Post by rsynnott »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #10
pjc50 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed - Cromwell wasn't an aberration, he was the start of the occupation of Ireland with all the usual brutality of colonialism, and the Orange Order will happily bring him out as a "stick" in the other direction.

England ruled Ireland well before Cromwell.

The Norman and then English occupation of Ireland had a number of stages from the 12th century on, but Cromwell definitely marked a sea change.

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#25

Post by [deleted] »

dev_north_east wrote: post #18
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Irish slavery” is usually a sign someone is a racist asshole who has no idea what they’re talking about.

I'm not American and have no interest in that side of stuff. Keep your partisan political terms and debates to yourselves. Call them forced to migrate, indented servants or whatever makes yourself feel good. I'll stick with the accurate term for such. Edit: Sorry for being a dick, I made assumptions there.

[deleted]

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#26

Post by s_dev »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #14
dev_north_east wrote: post #3

> albeit well over 300 years later, and as further proof that the Irish have perhaps the longest memories in the world. Oh right. At what point do historical figures get a free pass on bringing up their bad doings? And by bad doings, we're talking deaths in the hundreds of thousands, enforced slavery etc.

“Irish slavery” is usually a sign someone is a racist asshole who has no idea what they’re talking about.

> has no idea what they’re talking about.

Funny -- because you've clearly misread something in the thread or think you're in another thread. This has nothing to do with "Irish Slavery".

You be sure to continue to pontificate who does and doesn't know what they're talking about though.

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#27

Post by fsloth »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #14
dev_north_east wrote: post #3

> albeit well over 300 years later, and as further proof that the Irish have perhaps the longest memories in the world. Oh right. At what point do historical figures get a free pass on bringing up their bad doings? And by bad doings, we're talking deaths in the hundreds of thousands, enforced slavery etc.

“Irish slavery” is usually a sign someone is a racist asshole who has no idea what they’re talking about.

Racist? Toward whom, Irish? I'm sorry, not from the anglosaxon world, I know britain put Ireland under the boot centuries ago, but is calling all of that's effects a form of enslavement deragotary toward Irish?

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#28

Post by eternalban »

pjc50 wrote: post #8

Cromwell really does have a lingering propaganda support, doesn't he? The UK is one of a very small number of countries to have deliberately restored its monarchy after a revolution and period of parliamentary government, and the reason for that is that Cromwellian government was even worse for a lot of people. A modern analogue might be the Iranian Revolution; congratulations on getting rid of the puppet monarch con…

I must object to your "puppet monarch" comment here. By the standards of 'puppetry' that we can discern from historic documents the Shah of Iran was no more of a puppet than a certain "poodle".

Do you always prefix "puppet minister" before say mentioning Tony Blair or any of the post Suez UK PMs?

People like you who in the tradition of "lingering propaganda" continue to cast calumny on the late Shah of Iran need to let us know what exactly is your definition of "puppet" and "overseas interests".

For example, "overseas" interests that held the alledged "puppet's" strings felt Iran choosing a path of industrialization was not acceptable in the 1960s. So the puppet gets industrialization support, including Iran's steel industry bootstrap, from the USSR. 1960s, btw.

"Overseas interests" also didn't want the oil producers from organizing and getting their act together. Wasn't the "puppet" one of the key figures behind the rise of OPEC? Remember that?

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#29

Post by jhbadger »

Quarrel wrote: post #24

This is a recounting the story in the book, and the threads the author of the book draws out. This is not a review. It is terrible. I want to know is the book interesting, is it well written, engaging, well-paced? Critique it!

That isn't what magazines like "The Critic", "London Review of Books", and the like publish. They aren't like movie reviews ("two thumbs up!"). Instead, the articles are by other people who know the respective subjects and while sometimes the reviews criticize the theses of the books, they aren't interested in whether it is an exciting page-turner.

Re: Providence Lost: The Rise and Fall of Cromwell’s Protectorate

#30

Post by notahacker »

captain_price7 wrote: post #9
pjc50 wrote: post #8

Cromwell really does have a lingering propaganda support, doesn't he? The UK is one of a very small number of countries to have deliberately restored its monarchy after a revolution and period of parliamentary government, and the reason for that is that Cromwellian government was even worse for a lot of people. A modern analogue might be the Iranian Revolution; congratulations on getting rid of the puppet monarch con…

The article says things got worse not because cromwell was worse than Charles 1, but rather he inherited the mess caused by charles' policies and a country broken by civil war. Naturally it was worse for many people (specially Irish). But I wonder what would happen if characters like Cromwell weren't there at that time, Charles was allowed to continue bypassing parliament and ruling like a tyrant, and Britain turned…

He certainly inherited a country broken by civil war, but it is difficult to argue that his own decision to bypass Parliament and rule like a tyrant was the only possible course of action, or an improvement on his predecessor. Ultimately if Cromwell helped steer the country away from despotism - a matter of great debate - it was less by example and more because he, like Charles I, ended up having his head lopped off to popular acclaim (posthumously after a natural death, in his case) and subsequent leaders largely chose not to emulate him.
Post reply on HN